Caroline Kennedy Drama Seekers Rope in the New York Times

What is it with the New York Times and credulous writers named Judith? Judith Warner's column this morning, Getting Beyond Camelot, shows that while most Americans forget things way too quickly, some New York Democrats have memories entirely too long.

Marcia Pappas, president of the New York State chapter of the National Organization for Women told me, politely: "We can have a number of people who are qualified and we have to be very respectful of people and their talents, but when it comes down to it, we have to be grown-ups. We think this position should go to someone who's paid her dues, who's done the work."

Well, isn't that sober and well reasoned? It is fortunate that Judith Warner went out of her way to find a truly disinterested actor like Marcia Pappas to comment on Caroline Kennedy's interest in the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.

Wait, that's not the same Marcia Pappas who published an insane rant about Ted Kennedy's "ultimate betrayal" of Hillary Clinton, is it?

Gosh, it is? That's embarrassing. I guess Pappas's comments at the time flew beneath the radar.

Oh wait, they were prominently featured by Huffington Post's own Sam Stein, on Politico by Ben Smith, in The Atlantic by Marc Ambinder, Pappas appeared on MSNBC to defend her remarks, and a plucky little fishwrapper called the New York Times ran a few stories about her?

Remember when people working at big newspapers used Lexis-Nexis and stuff?

The anti-Caroline Kennedy forces work on a simple, old paradigm. "Look," they say, "over here! Here's some high minded concerns about experience and electability for you to consider." And we all dutily debate whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified enough, etc. Meanwhile, the real story is that this is all a power game by vengeful Clintonistas.

Democratic House Representative Anthony Weiner, who Gawker's Pareene observes, "we hope runs for mayor and loses and then retires to Florida maybe, in 2009," let the cat out of the bag when he opined: "This isn't a jihad or anything, but I'd be lying to you if I said that supporters of Hillary don't remember where she was in the primary."

Oh Anthony, and here we've been trying to politely forget where you people were in the primary. Silly us.

To be clear, not all former Clinton supporters in New York are against Kennedy. As Al Giordano observes, many of the Clintonistas have moved on. Jeralyn of Talkleft, one of the most diehard bastions of Clinton sentiment in the dying days of the primary, says she thinks Caroline Kennedy would make a fine Senator. It's just that it seems like everyone who opposes her with a D behind their name is a Clintonista.

Barack Obama choose Caroline Kennedy to lead his Vice Presidential search committee. He's not the sort of guy who puts people in sensitive positions based on patronage or favors. He has confidence in Kennedy's abilities. She wouldn't be in the conversation without his approval. Since the head of the party wants her and she's got a good progressive record, that should be the end of the discussion.

Have you heard a single policy objection to Caroline Kennedy? The anti-Kennedy forces are pushing a woman named Carolyn Maloney, who seems to be a decent enough liberal who went with the crowd in 2002 and voted for the Iraq War. (To her credit, by 2006 she turned against it.) Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama were against the war from the beginning. I would be startled if Caroline deviated from their thinking on it.

I was particularly disappointed to see Jane Hamsher sneer at Caroline Kennedy. Hamsher snarked, "Caroline Kennedy has decided she'd rather have a US Senate seat than a pony for Christmas."

Hamsher's first claim to fame was supporting Ned Lamont. Lamont's loss to quisling Joe Lieberman still stings. Jane, didn't Lieberman disingenuously make the same arguments against Lamont that you now make against Caroline Kennedy? Lamont is a great man, but he's a man from a patrician family with no electoral experience whatsoever. Did Ned just want a pony, too, Jane? Let's save the pony talk for the people who deserve it, shall we?

Caroline Kennedy will have to run for election in 2010 and 2012. If she's a bad Senator, she can face a primary challenge in both. The arguments against her, are of course, a perverse insight into the fears of her opponents within the party and in the GOP. They know that fifty-something Caroline is a practical lock to be Senator for the next thirty years. Heaven forbid.

Let's not reward the drama seekers. Caroline Kennedy should be the next junior Senator from New York.

Follow Bart Motes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bmotes

Comments

[meko]

She is only in consideration because of her last name, money and family connections. No one with her resume (non-practicing attorney, co-author of a few books, charity board member, part-time volunteer on behalf of NY public schools) would be considered otherwise.

But perhaps all those people talking about the cost of reelection have a point. Perhaps only the very wealthy and people with relatives in government can win the senate seat in New York. Caroline Kennedy never raised money for anyone who wasn't a family member, and I doubt her friends would either.

The New York senate seat, may not be available to anyone but the wealthy. The best the common people can hope for is a relatively sympathetic plutocrat.

But I'm not giving them any of my time or money. If the senate is going to be bought by someone, they can buy it themselves.

[kevingiampa]

Yeah, if she wasn't Caroline Kennedy, she wouldn't be Caroline Kennedy. Great point.

[meko]

If she had the resume of Andrew Cuomo, Byron Brown, Carolyn Maloney, Elizabeth Holtzman, Thomas Suozzi, Nydia Velazquez, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Steve Israel - then I'd take her appointment seriously. She wouldn't just be talking about her ideals. She would have demonstrated an ability to put her views into action.

[orangepetal]

part 3.........So call me bitter, insult my intelligence with ideas of lotteries or keep trying to tell me a D is a D is a D.
I will tell you why I think she shines, not upon her words, her name, her gender, her party, or on your presumptuous opinions of my emotional state, but solely for her deeds. I’m not looking for critical party votes, I am looking for critical people votes.

[meko]

I think Kirsten Gillibrand would be a credit to the state of New York. I'm pulling for Carolyn Maloney, but honestly I think either woman would be a better choice than Kennedy.

[orangepetal]

Part 2.…….I support her simply for her accomplishments, knowledge, interest and efforts in areas that I consider are important across mainstream political thought.
I think there are certain critical issues that are relevant and I'm sorry if gun rights and gay marriage are not the first things on my list. I do hear the pain in the voice of gays and I feel the pain of urban streets.
But there are other issues too. I am a mother, I think mothers perhaps see things differently.
I love Kirsten Gillibrand’s resume, I think she is puuurfect for the times and the needs of her state and the United States. Her experience in Hud. Housing is a pretty big issue at the moment and urban development should IMO be a major focus as America may be finally fulfilling her promise to love all her children . Agriculture, IMO is directly connected to health. The nations health does not depend only on pills or policy but also on the quality of food on the kitchen tables across the nation. She is knowledgeable about the wildlife, which means her hands are on the real environmental stresses and needs. She is active on national security and we are in two wars with our young men and women in harms way. She is Entrepreneurial friendly and has done things to widen and promote this.

[orangepetal]

So simplistic......
Another really clever person's solution was a lottery.
The worst for me to hear is how clever Obama is playing his ‘get Clinton out’ chess game, and second is the real money and political benefits the party can of course expect. I'm sorry my cynicism hasn't fully matured.
I am not some big person. I am just another American that cares about many of the issues of the day. Yes, I do respect the service of the Clinton family. I respect too the service of the Kennedy family.
I'm not sure if normally many things go unnoticed until something jolts you, or if it is just something that is being highlighted because of overlapping factors. Regardless. None of it is the real issue.
I have decided to support Kirsten Gillibrand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand

[ElBruce]

HuffPost's Pick

You know, I never hear these complaints about qualifications when a man decides he's going to stop running corporations and enter public life as a politician. In fact, business experience is typically touted as a good resume for a politician even though they've got nothing whatsoever to do with each other. CK's actual experience is much better for the Senate than the average big-name CEO.

As for "she should run for it," the same argument could be used for any of the candidates. Therefore, it's not a knock against any of them. "But they've been elected to other things," you cry. Yes, but those elections are irrelevant; just because I vote for someone for dogcatcher doesn't mean I want them to be mayor.

I wouldn't be nearly so warm to the idea of CK as Senator at this point if all the people against it didn't consistently put forth such stupid and demeaning arguments.

[Mahi Joe]

If she was not a Kennedy and rather an unknown person would those same exact qualifications would she even be considered for that seat?

[Bart Motes - Huffpost Blogger]

Truth is, Caroline got her foot in the door with her name. The door she got her foot in was endorsing Barack Obama, spending a lot of time on the trail with Barack Obama, talking to Barack Obama. If she was an idiot naif, Barack Obama would have been really polite with her and then never answered her calls. Instead he was impressed enough with her to put her in charge of the most important and delicate task of his presidential run: picking his VP nominee.

As a result, she is likely to be appointed to the U.S. Senate seat.

Is that purely fair? No. But it is representative of the peculiar combination of connections and merit that runs much of the world. And it's not the outrageous travesty that the anti-Kennedy forces portray it as.

[markkraft]

HuffPost's Pick

It's good to see someone out there pointing out the hypocrisy in Clinton-supporting Democrats opposing Caroline Kennedy, as if she is completely unfit for the job.

Frankly, a lot of them are afraid that other Democratic females will start to eclipse Hillary's stature in the party. Many still feel that Hillary should be president in 2012 -- good luck with that! -- or 2016, and they just aren't content with history moving on, for both them and their candidate.

I guess that's understandable in a way... nobody likes feeling like they're on the wrong side of change, or past their peak... but Hillary couldn't have hoped for a better shot at the White House, and it just wasn't to be. And if she ran again in the future, she'd find herself in the awkward position of running against herself, with old war wounds sapping her strength and old animosities strengthening her opponents.

I think Hillary's resigned herself to that fact, wants to serve in public office for maybe another eight years, and that she wants *some* kind of retirement around 2017, when she'll be pushing 70 and still able to enjoy it. To that end, she has thrown herself unselfishly towards helping unify the Democratic Party and actively supporting the Obama administration to the best of her ability.

It's too bad we can't say the same thing about all of her former supporters.

[meko]

I was an Obama supporter. And supporting Gillibrand, Maloney, Slaughter, Lowey or Velazquez isn't sexism.

It's sexism to suggest that women who are serving in office aren't qualified to be senator, but a woman who's only qualification is her family name is qualified.

[markkraft]

No... what's sexist -- and naive -- is to suggest that someone with a lifetime of relevant political experience and experience in helping the people of New York, such as Caroline Kennedy, has only two qualifications... her name *AND* her sex.

[meko]

I'm more than happy to give her a chance as a candidate in an election. If she wanted to be appointed at a lower level office, like state senator, I wouldn't be so offended. But why does she get to start at the top? Why are so many hard-working effective legislators being dismissed? Because of her parents. For no reason other than her parents. Objecting to her is not discriminating against the most qualified candidate because of her name, it's insisting that MORE qualified candidates not be pushed aside for the sake of a well-connected neophyte.

I've seen the hard work candidates put in to get elected, and to stay in office. I find it discouraging that all of the talent in the pipeline is being pushed aside.

There's a reason that NOW is endorsing Carolyn Moloney for the office. She has already demonstrated that she is an effective legislator and advocate on not only women, but all citizens in New York.

It shouldn't be a "give Caroline first crack, if she is a complete disaster, the qualified people can run against her when she's an incumbent." That kind of elitism isn't good for the electorate, and it isn't good for the long-term well being of the party. It discourages talented people from getting involved when you know that the top spot will always be gifted to the children of the people who are already in power.

[Mahi Joe]

I agree. The US senatorialship is not like being on some charitable organizational's board. If Caroline wishes to be a politician then let her cut her teeth on a lesser position like a state senator as you suggested and prove her value through her voting record. Don't get me wrong, I like Caroline but this is an important position in a time where decisions on everything from the economy and the wars are extremely important.

[ClarkJensen]

Political family nepotism is bigger than ever. I feel sympathy for the citizens of New York who have their choices smothered in the politics of powerful political families. Thank God that on the West Coast - where I live - we have mayors and Senators who - generally - are not the latest extension of a family aristocracy.

[lwaxanatroi]

Udall. Salazar. And of course, Arnold Scwartzenegger had those twelve years in the state legislature--not. Face it, lots of people love a celebrity.

[klondiker]

I don't see how Pappas's positions have anything to do with Clinton, nor do they seem inconsistent. As I recall, one of the main reasons why she criticized Ted Kennedy was because he was supporting, what she believed, was a less qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate, in her view, on the basis of gender. I didn't agree with her then. But, it seems she's is arguing more or less the same thing - She thinks that Caroline Kennedy is less qualified, and we shouldn't choose her.

As to your question about whether there has been a single policy objection to Kennedy - that's why she has yet to take a policy stance on anything. Just in the last couple of days, she's coming out with some positions (pretty broadly liberal positions that I'm sure other candidates hold as well).

[Bart Motes - Huffpost Blogger]

My point was that you'd have to be crazier than hell to quote someone who talked about the "psychological gangbang of Hillary Clinton" by Barack Obama and John Edwards and wrote about Ted's endorsement of Obama over Hillary as the "greatest betrayal" and the "ultimate betrayal" without at least making reference to it. I mean, the woman wrote:

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). "They" are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future.

I don't think she's a dispassionate observer of Caroline Kennedy.

[johnnynyc]

Lawrence O'Donnell isn't dispassionate either.

He's given advice to Caroline Kennedy's biggest supporter in New York.

Yet he is continually given a platform here, commenting on her candidacy without full disclosure.

The New York Times, a convenient boogyman for the left and right, actually published the answers to 15 questions they submitted to the Caroline Kennedy camp.

Kennedy disagrees with Obama on gay marriage. He's against, she's for.

What isn't clear is which member of her or Uncle Teddy's staff wrote those answers.

Has anyone else, this site included, done that?

[klondiker]

Thanks for your response.

So, you would have been happy if Warner had merely pointed out that Pappas supported Hillary in the primaries?

Isn't the president of the NY chapter of NOW a significant enough position, with enough of a stake in NY politics, to comment on a potential senate appointment without regard to whom she supported previously?

[lizr]

lol- thanks for catching that!

[Boston1775]

HuffPost's Pick

The idea that Americans do not know the views of Caroline Kennedy after she, Ted and Maria Shriver supported Obama at a critical point in his campaign is ludicrous.

She was selected by Obama to find his running mate, yet it is put forth that she has no political skills.

Her work on behalf of New York's public schools is belittled in spite of the fact that education is a top priority of the Obama administration.

Her research work on Constitutional privacy issues is ridiculed because she worked with a partner. How does that make sense?

Caroline Kennedy is a fifty one year old mother of three who has been characterized as a spoiled brat asking her uncle for a Senate seat instead of a pony. This is taken straight from Karl Rove. Attack a person at her strongest point. Vilify her choice of raising children privately before engaging in public life. Portray that brilliant choice - of delaying public service until one's children have matured - as selfish.

Those of us intimately involved in raising the next generation appreciate the need for privacy for their sake. They are so busy trying, failing, trying again, succeeding, faltering: they need a new day, every day, not publicity. No headlines. No drama.

Women entering public service as the nest begins to empty is the next chapter in having it all, just not all at once.

[longislandlol]

The rovian horrors ! Please leave Caroline do what she was born and raised to do-----lead......

[FreedomAgain]

Great post!

[Boston1775]

I'm enjoying thinking about the chapter of women's lives that can be extended by good health. The kids are busy, gone, even.

These women are used to being busy. And they've had to figure out what their kids were really doing. They're realists.

They'll do a good job. The realists will.

[Bart Motes - Huffpost Blogger]

Very strong and insightful remarks! Thank you very much for this.

[johnnynyc]

1. Caroline Kennedy says "I feel like I'm a Kennedy Democrat, a Clinton Democrat, [Sen. Charles] Schumer, Barack Obama -- these are all leaders whose values I share and I feel like those are the kinds of values that I would bring."

What, no FDR? You're supposed to be a brilliant historian.

2. Nobody can claim Caroline Kennedy "found" Joe Biden. That's just silly.

3. Lots of rich New Yorkers raise lots of money for their favorite cause. They aren't qualified to be a senator either.

4. Lots of New Yorkers write lots of books, oftentimes without a co-author (ghost-writer). They aren't qualified to be senator either.

5. Lots of New Yorkers are in their 50s with grown children wondering what to do next with their life. They aren't qualified to be senator either.

5. Its been documented Uncle Teddy asked her to put her name forward not the other way around.

OK you've got me here.

There aren't too many New Yorkers whose uncle's call them and ask them to carry on the family dynasty in the Senate.

So really, all that separates Caroline Kennedy from lots of New Yorkers is she has a famous uncle who asked her to carry on the family name in the Senate.

I'm sorry, New Yorkers deserve better that.

[jbgnyc]

Great Post, johnnynyc!! May I (a HUGE Hillary supporter) also add: what lots of New Yorkers haven't done is be there from the beginning helping New York City get it's fair share of disaster and health relief as U.S. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney has. She is not just some "decent enough liberal." How insulting. This woman came to my first downtown meeting a year after 9/11 to offer insight into how we could better organize to get help (and she wasn't even our Congressperson). She then held a huge 5-borough-wide disaster preparedness analysis attended by hundreds.(and with great foresight pointed out all the US shortcomings in terms of protecting us from further attacks.) My point: Maloney is there for New Yorkers big and small, influential and nobodies. And she has ALL the PROVEN progressive credentials any pro-woman liberal like myself could ask for.

[glorialovelace]

Nobody is vilifying Dear Little Caroline for staying home with her children. But because she did so, her legislative experience is far less than that of the other people competing for that seat. She also knows very little about New York State -- that listening tour she did last week, where she visited a handful of mayors was pathetic. She couldn't even be bothered to find out what Hillary Clinton did on HER listening tours -- which was to spend a great deal of time all over our state talking to citizens about their problems.

[johnnynyc]

"Since the head of the party wants her and she's got a good progressive record, that should be the end of the discussion."

Maybe in some country where "the head of the party" is synonymous with the government itself you'd have a point.

Obama has expressed no preference stating he has enough problems with Illinois politics, and indeed he does.

Anyway the people of New York will not kowtow to the wishes of Uncle Teddy Kennedy.

Andrew Cuomo is our choice and Andrew Cuomo it shall be

[Bart Motes - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't think Andrew Cuomo can shuck and jive his way to the Senate, sorry.

[johnnynyc]

I agree Caroline Kennedy is a world class shuck and jiver, especially with Uncle Teddy manning the phones, but the people of New York support their Attorney for the vacant position.

[eden4barack08]

Beautifully written, and funny too. I agree wholeheartedly, and as a NYer, I can't wait to call Caroline Kennedy, MY Senator. I hope Paterson keeps his wisdom when making this decision. Caroline is right for NY, and right for this moment. I have no doubt she'll successfully campaign, raise money, run and win in 2010 and every election after that. Yes she can!

[metivo]

Caroline Kennedy is the best selection to fill the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. Move on, people.

[meko]

Yes. Ignore those other choices. Kirsten Gillibrand, Moloney, Louise Slaughter, Nita Lowey, and Nydia Velazquez. They picked the wrong parents.

Everyone who's worked and developed their skills, step aside. A non-practicing attorney, co-author of a few books, and name on a charity board is claiming her due. And what makes someone with such a comparatively thin record of achievements deserve the seat?

The same thing that made her worthy the day she was born. Her parents. Princess Caroline is aristocracy. Step aside commoners.

[beaupritchard]

HuffPost's Pick

That's just dumb ... look ... everyone comes from somewhere. Had Caroline been out there using her fathers name or her families name to wheedle her way out of jams or out of the check at restaurants I'd say Ok. But all the evidence is she's led a low profile even reverse patronage lifestyle turning down honors that may be her.

The fact is she showed an outstanding ability to organize and direct a campaign to choose a Vice Presidential candidate and coming up with Joe Biden. The choice was made dispassionately when many thought she could also be a nominee and proved she could play at the presidential level.

Her closeness to Obama has nothing to do with her surname but as stated when she came out has more to do with a common view of what needs to be done.

You and others really need to get off this womans back ...